Legal Opinion

Darling & Co. v. Fleming

Emergency Court of Appeals

Decided December 20, 1946No. 366PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

LINDLEY, Judge.

Complainant buys, cures and sells hides to tanners and manufacturers. On April 12, 1945 it protested the validity of, (a), Revised Price Schedule No. 9, issued February 17, 1942, (7 F. R. 1227), and particularly Section 1314.7(b), providing that tanners report to the Office of Price Administration certain information as to hides pitrehased, and, (b), Sections 1314.10 (k), 1314.11(d) and 1314.12(d), commonly termed the “mixed lot” provisions. A board of review recommended that the protest be denied and the Price Administrator approved the recommendation. Thereupon the complaint…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Conklin Pen Co. v. BowlesEmergency Court of Appeals · 1946
  2. Gillespie-Rogers-Pyatt Co. v. BowlesEmergency Court of Appeals · 1944
  3. Heinz v. BowlesEmergency Court of Appeals · 1945
  4. Montgomery Ward & Co. v. BowlesEmergency Court of Appeals · 1943
  5. Bowman v. BowlesEmergency Court of Appeals · 1944

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Curtiss Candy Co. v. ClarkEmergency Court of Appeals · 1948

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API